Dog (Bite) Days of Summer, Part I: Owners Usually, But Not Always, Strictly Liable For Dog Bites

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Beware of dog (pd)As dog owners in New Jersey know, or should know, they are usually strictly liable for injuries suffered by anyone bitten by their dogs. New Jersey does not follow a "one free bite rule." Instead, under New Jersey law: "The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness."

There are, however, exceptions to this rule. For example, trespassers, who are obviously not "lawfully on or in a private place," cannot sue under the dog bite statute. A different exception was at play in Carpentiero v. Pocknett, where a dog groomer was bitten in the face by a dog while bathing the dog. In that case, defendant brought her dog to Katie's Pet Depot, where plaintiff, an independent contractor, worked as a part-time pet groomer. Plaintiff testified that had she been advised that the dog was old and had arthritis, she would have "muzzled the dog prior to grooming." But she was never told that, therefore she did not muzzle the dog, and, while she was bathing the dog, she was bitten in the face.  

Continue reading “Dog (Bite) Days of Summer, Part I: Owners Usually, But Not Always, Strictly Liable For Dog Bites”

Take It Outside: Club Not Responsible For Injuries When Fight Spilled Into Parking Lot

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Roadhouse (pd)You don't need to be James Dalton to know that bar fights are scary. (If you don't know who James Dalton is, however, you do need to go watch Road House.) Bar fights can also create legal problems for bar owners. For example, do bar owners have a duty to keep their patrons safe from harm caused by fights? In Lloyd v. Underpass Enterprises, Inc. t/a The Harem, the Appellate Division dealt with this issue in the context of a somewhat unusual situation — a fight between two people that started in the club but ended up outside the club, and injured an individual who was not one of the combatants.

In Lloyd, plaintiff was playing "poker tournament style" in a hotel room with some co-workers, including Cecil George. After the game, they decided to visit a gentleman's club. George invited a friend, who had not been at the poker game, to join them at the club. About an hour after arriving, plaintiff saw George fighting with someone who "may have been" the friend George invited to the club. The club's bouncers broke up the fight, "escorted George and the other combatant outside to the parking lot," and then waited near the club's entrance. Plaintiff followed them out. The Appellate Division described what happened next:

[Plaintiff] was standing near George when he saw the other combatant rushing quickly, looking "menacing and  coming  at  [them] with  intent." [Plaintiff] stepped in between George and the person  rushing at them to "put  [him]self  as  a  barrier  between  [the other combatant] and [George]." [Plaintiff] stated  "[e]verything  happened  quickly." He awoke four days later in the hospital, having sustained a serious head injury.

Plaintiff sued the club. The club moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted its motion. Plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.

Continue reading “Take It Outside: Club Not Responsible For Injuries When Fight Spilled Into Parking Lot”

Winning Bidder At Sheriff’s Sale Entitled To Recoup Some, But Not All, Of His Deposit After Sale Is Vacated

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Auction (pd)A recent decision from the Appellate Division drives home (1) the duty of sellers at sheriff's sales to announce all material information about the property being sold at the sale, (2) the duty of bidders at sheriff's sales to perform independent due diligence about the property notwithstanding that announcement, and (3) the flexibility of Chancery Division courts to fashion remedies when both fail to fully satisfy their obligations.

In Wells Fargo Bank Bank, N.A. v. Torney, plaintiff foreclosed on property owned by defendant, obtained final judgment against defendant, and proceeded to sheriff's sale. In advance of the sheriff's sale, plaintiff submitted its "sheriff's sale package" to the Camden County Sheriff. Included in the package was a short form property description (required under N.J.S.A. 2A:61-1), which, among other things, disclosed that the property was subject to a $94,000 first mortgage. The existence of this prior mortgage was also disclosed in the conditions of sale attached to the short form property description, and in the Affidavit of Consideration submitted by plaintiff in connection with the foreclosure. Finally, the short form property description also contained the following disclaimer: "all interested parties are to conduct and rely upon their own independent investigation to ascertain whether or not any outstanding interest remain[s] of record and/or have priority over the lien being foreclosed and, if so[,] the correct amount due thereon."

Edward Shuman, who would eventually be the winning bidder at the sheriff' sale,  learned about the sale through the sheriff's website, which did not mention the prior mortgage. Also, at the sheriff's sale, plaintiff did not announce, as part of its "general announcements," that the property was subject to a prior mortgage. And, on the "printed condition of sale, the box next to 'subject to a first mortgage' was not checked." Shuman claims that he did not know about the prior mortgage when he placed his winning bid on the property, and did not learn about it until later that day when he inquired about the existence of any tax liens on the property. Once he learned about the mortgage, he contacted plaintiff and requested that the sale be vacated and his deposit returned. When plaintiff refused, Shuman filed a motion seeking the same relief. 

Continue reading “Winning Bidder At Sheriff’s Sale Entitled To Recoup Some, But Not All, Of His Deposit After Sale Is Vacated”

When, If Ever, Is A Residential Mortgage Not “Residential” For The Purpose of Foreclosure?

     by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

Believe it or not, this question comes up from time to time in my practice (exciting life, I know). In recent years I have prosecuted many foreclosure actions, but only commercial foreclosures. So the first question I usually ask a colleague who comes to me with a foreclosure  question is: "Is it a commercial or residential property?" When the answer starts with something like, "Well, that is actually an interesting question . . . " then I can almost guess what is coming next. Usually it is some variation of: "It is a home, but they mortgaged it to get money to start a commercial enterprise, so I want to argue that its commercial property." Unfortunately, you usually can't make that argument (at least not successfully), and the Appellate Division's recent decision in City National Bank of New Jersey v. Hodge reminded us all of that fact again.

To begin with, the differences between commercial and residential foreclosures in New Jersey are significant. Most importantly, commercial foreclosures are not subject to the Fair Foreclosure Act, including the various notice requirements that are required for residential foreclosures under the Act. Simply put, New Jersey law provides greater protections for residential owners who are about to lose their homes than they do for commercial owners who are about to lose their place of business. This means that the burdens on lenders seeking to foreclose on a residential mortgage are more demanding, if not entirely onerous.

 

Continue reading “When, If Ever, Is A Residential Mortgage Not “Residential” For The Purpose of Foreclosure?”

Lender Allowed To Foreclose But Punished By Court For Violating Consumer Fraud Act

by: Peter J. Gallagher

A New Jersey trial court issued an interesting opinion last week, allowing a lender to foreclose but imposing significant limitations on the lender because the court concluded that the lender had violated the Consumer Fraud Act.

In Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Mamie E. Major, borrower wanted to refinance the mortgage on her home to lower the 5 5/8 interest rate and take out additional money to help pay for her grandson’s college tuition. Defendant was 70 years old, earned approximately $30,000 per year and owed $341,500 on her existing mortgage. At the time of the refinance her home had a market value of $365,000, but she eventually abandoned her plan to obtain more equity from the home and instead refinanced just to lower the interest rate.

Her existing home loan was an FHA-insured loan and was current, so Freedom Mortgage Company treated the refinance as an FHA “Streamline loan,” which required little or no new or extra documentation and did not require a new appraisal. According to Freedom, FHA guidelines allowed it to rely on the underwriting performed by the prior lender. Nonetheless, before approving the refinance, Freedom used a “net benefit” test to determine whether it was justified, and concluded that it was because both the interest rate and the monthly payment would be lower under the new loan.

At the closing, borrower signed a HUD-1A Settlement Statement that showed a new loan of $354,005, which included the payoff of the prior loan, the payoff of open tax balances, and $11,479.65 in settlement charges, payable to Freedom, for, among other things, a loan discount fee, commitment fee, application fee, and courier fee.

After making six payments on the new loan, borrower defaulted. Freedom filed a foreclosure complaint, which borrower answered. Freedom then moved to strike the answer and proceed with the foreclosure as uncontested. The court granted this motion, but found that there was a factual issue as to whether Freedom violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) in connection with the refinance. After trial on this issue, the court concluded that Freedom had, in fact, violated the CFA.

 

Continue reading “Lender Allowed To Foreclose But Punished By Court For Violating Consumer Fraud Act”